In re the Welfare Of: A.H.
34773-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- A.H., born October 26, 2014, was placed in out-of-home care after hospital and DSHS concerns about parents’ substance use, homelessness, and cognitive/parenting limitations. Dependency petition filed October 29, 2014; dispositional order entered January 16, 2015.
- Parents: Mr. H. (extensive criminal history including a 1992 conviction for assault on an infant; chronic daily marijuana use; domestic violence and anger issues) and Ms. F. (borderline intellectual functioning, inconsistent engagement in services).
- Court-ordered services included chemical dependency treatment, domestic violence and mental health counseling, parenting assessments, SafeCare, Promoting First Relationships (PFR), family therapy, and supervised visitation.
- Both parents repeatedly missed or poorly engaged in services and supervised visits; Mr. H. tested positive for marijuana frequently and refused meaningful treatment; Ms. F. missed many mental-health and parenting sessions and had persistent problems providing basic supplies and following feedback.
- The trial court found statutory termination elements satisfied, concluded both parents were unlikely to remedy deficiencies in the near future, found Mr. H. currently unfit, and determined termination was in A.H.’s best interest; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mr. H.'s Argument | Ms. F.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSHS offered/provided court-ordered services (RCW 13.34.180(1)(d)) | DSHS failed to provide necessary housing assistance and other services | PFR and other services were not adequately tailored to her disabilities under the ADA | Court: Substantial evidence DSHS offered/provided required, tailored services; Ms. F. waived ADA claim by not raising it below |
| Whether there is little likelihood conditions will be remedied so child can be returned (RCW 13.34.180(1)(e)) | Argued he could improve; contestors say deficiencies not shown unlikely to change | Ms. F. argued she could remedy conditions; court should not apply presumption | Court: Statutory presumption applied (12+ months without improvement); substantial evidence supports finding of little likelihood of remedy in near future |
| Whether Mr. H. is currently unfit to parent | Challenges finding of current unfitness; disputes that marijuana use and DV issues impair parenting | N/A | Court: Current unfitness supported by cumulative deficiencies (chemical dependency, domestic violence, parenting deficits) shown by clear, convincing evidence |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest / premature | Minimally argued bonding and progress; asserted premature to terminate | Argued premature if earlier findings wrong | Court: Termination in A.H.’s best interest; continuation would impede timely adoption; not premature given findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizing fundamental parental liberty interest and heightened proof requirements)
- In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (two-step termination analysis under RCW 13.34.180 and focus on proving parental unfitness)
- Wash. State Coalition for the Homeless v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 133 Wn.2d 894 (court may order housing assistance where homelessness is primary reason for placement)
- In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918 (review standard: clear, cogent, and convincing evidence required for termination findings)
- In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (parental deficiencies must prevent provision for child’s basic health, welfare, and safety to establish current unfitness)
- In re Welfare of S.J., 162 Wn. App. 873 (service-offer and reunification burden and evidentiary standards)
- In re Welfare of T.B., 150 Wn. App. 599 (statutory 12-month presumption and burden shifting on likelihood of remedy)